|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
patongpanda
Joined: 06 Feb 2007
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:47 am Post subject: First Criminal Trial in UK without a Jury |
 |
|
Criminal trial to be heard without jury for the first time
The Court of Appeal has given a historic ruling allowing the first ever criminal trial to be heard without a jury.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5567069/Criminal-trial-to-be-heard-without-jury-for-the-first-time.html
This is interesting to me, because my room-mate at university witnessed a violent bank robbery in which the robbers wore gas masks and filled the bank with tear gas.
The robbers were well known Midlands hard men. We got telephone threats and bricks through the window, but the police did absolutely nothing.
In the end some members of the Jury refused to convict because of the threats, and the violent criminals walked free.
Rather than abolish the right to trial by Jury I would rather see proper protection of Jurors, and I had a brick miss my head by a foot and a face full of glass so I'm speaking from experience on this one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This is just one reason why a professional juror system would be superior to the system of drawing from the general population. Having to protect people drawn almost randomly from your population is possible but difficult and costly. With a pool of professional jurors, you need not even disclose the identities of the jurors involved in a given case until after the case ends. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sleepy in Seoul
Joined: 15 May 2004
Location: Going in ever decreasing circles until I eventually disappear up my own fundament - in NZ
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| This is just one reason why a professional juror system would be superior to the system of drawing from the general population. Having to protect people drawn almost randomly from your population is possible but difficult and costly. With a pool of professional jurors, you need not even disclose the identities of the jurors involved in a given case until after the case ends. |
That would defeat the purpose of having a jury in the first place. The jury would only be your 'peers' if you also are employed exclusively to judge others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sleepy in Seoul wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| This is just one reason why a professional juror system would be superior to the system of drawing from the general population. Having to protect people drawn almost randomly from your population is possible but difficult and costly. With a pool of professional jurors, you need not even disclose the identities of the jurors involved in a given case until after the case ends. |
That would defeat the purpose of having a jury in the first place. The jury would only be your 'peers' if you also are employed exclusively to judge others. |
If someone must be employed in the same field as you to be your peer, than the vast majority of juries do not consist of a defendant's peers anyway.
A professional juror is just as much your "peer" as a doctor, construction worker, police officer, teacher, or any other member of a profession which you yourself do not belong to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sleepy in Seoul
Joined: 15 May 2004
Location: Going in ever decreasing circles until I eventually disappear up my own fundament - in NZ
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Sleepy in Seoul wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| This is just one reason why a professional juror system would be superior to the system of drawing from the general population. Having to protect people drawn almost randomly from your population is possible but difficult and costly. With a pool of professional jurors, you need not even disclose the identities of the jurors involved in a given case until after the case ends. |
That would defeat the purpose of having a jury in the first place. The jury would only be your 'peers' if you also are employed exclusively to judge others. |
If someone must be employed in the same field as you to be your peer, than the vast majority of juries do not consist of a defendant's peers anyway.
A professional juror is just as much your "peer" as a doctor, construction worker, police officer, teacher, or any other member of a profession which you yourself do not belong to. |
Not so. The only reason to have a jury is to have a group of people who are average members of the public without any special legal experience who will be objective as regards the evidence. You are proposing to implement an exclusive group of people who are solely employed to attend trials and who will inevitably use their legal experience to make judgements, rather than having a selection of normal members of the public. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sleepy in Seoul wrote: |
| Not so. The only reason to have a jury is to have a group of people who are average members of the public without any special legal experience who will be objective as regards the evidence. |
An impartial jury capable of providing a just ruling in no way is required to lack special legal experience. The idea that a group of semi-random individuals with no legal training will be more objective about the evidence than a group of professionals actually trained in the law yet with no professional stake regarding the outcome (such as prosecution and defense laywers have) seems highly suspect to me. This goes double given cases like the above, where your "impartial and objective" individuals who are members of the average public are letting people off out of fear. That's not justice.
| Sleepy in Seoul wrote: |
| You are proposing to implement an exclusive group of people who are solely employed to attend trials and who will inevitably use their legal experience to make judgements, rather than having a selection of normal members of the public. |
A fairly accurate depicition, yes. I know it is perhaps shocking that one might feel the people who rule on criminal cases should actually have an in depth understanding of the law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sleepy in Seoul
Joined: 15 May 2004
Location: Going in ever decreasing circles until I eventually disappear up my own fundament - in NZ
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Sleepy in Seoul wrote: |
| You are proposing to implement an exclusive group of people who are solely employed to attend trials and who will inevitably use their legal experience to make judgements, rather than having a selection of normal members of the public. |
A fairly accurate depicition, yes. I know it is perhaps shocking that one might feel the people who rule on criminal cases should actually have an in depth understanding of the law. |
It's not shocking, merely an understanding of the reasons why a jury system was started. A jury of peers is supposed to be a random selection of normal, average people just like you, me and the person down the road. As most people have little knowledge of the workings of law, a jury is supposed to be the same. That is why, in Queensland at least, no police officer, serving or retired, is allowed to join a jury.
(Edited for grammar) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Sleepy in Seoul wrote: |
| You are proposing to implement an exclusive group of people who are solely employed to attend trials and who will inevitably use their legal experience to make judgements, rather than having a selection of normal members of the public. |
A fairly accurate depicition, yes. I know it is perhaps shocking that one might feel the people who rule on criminal cases should actually have an in depth understanding of the law. |
Why would they need an in-depth understanding of the law? Juries don't rule on questions of law. They rule on questions of fact. Judges rule on questions of law.
A question of fact: Whether the bloody glove found was the accused's.
A question of law: Whether the statute of limitations has run on a wrongful death action. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
In America juries DO have the right to rule on the law. They have the right to declare the law null and void. This is one more reason that a jury "of your peers" must NOT include trained legal personnel, police officers, lawyers, judges etc.
It was just such "jury nullification" that led to many juries voting to overturn various slavery statutes in many states prior to the Civil War in the US. The jury system alone, if allowed to operate properly, could elimate many bad laws.
We must never allow professional juries.
We must support jury nullification, and make sure that all jurors are informed of their legal right to overturn bad law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Sleepy in Seoul wrote: |
| You are proposing to implement an exclusive group of people who are solely employed to attend trials and who will inevitably use their legal experience to make judgements, rather than having a selection of normal members of the public. |
A fairly accurate depicition, yes. I know it is perhaps shocking that one might feel the people who rule on criminal cases should actually have an in depth understanding of the law. |
Why would they need an in-depth understanding of the law? Juries don't rule on questions of law. |
I would certainly say otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| In America juries DO have the right to rule on the law. They have the right to declare the law null and void. |
Care to cite the specific legislation that gives juries such power? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I've studied English law and am well aware of the absurdities posed by the jury system, but, on the condition that juries make decisions of fact only and also on the basis that justice has to be seen to be done, I don't recall feeling that replacing the jury system with any alternative was an urgent task to which we should concern ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| In America juries DO have the right to rule on the law. They have the right to declare the law null and void. |
Care to cite the specific legislation that gives juries such power? |
I thought it was in the federal Constitution and of four states, but I could only find this now:
| Quote: |
2. Do juries have the power to nullify? What is the legal basis for this right?
The right of juries to nullify is grounded in federal case law. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to trial by jury in criminal cases. In one notable case, the court concluded that the right to trial by jury included the right to acquit the defendant because it had no sympathy for the government�s position. See: U.S. v. Datcher, 830 F.Supp. 411 (M.D. Tenn. 1993). The jury acts as the �conscience of the community,� and the power to nullify serves to �prevent oppression by the Government.� Id. at 414.
Courts have recognized that a criminal jury has the right to acquit the defendant, regardless of the strength of the evidence. For example, in Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135 (1920), the Supreme Court explained that �The judge cannot direct a verdict.� The jury has the right, the Court continued, �to decide against the law and the facts.� In another case, U.S. v. Trujillo, 714 F.2d 102, 106 (1983), the court recognized that a jury may deliver a verdict that is at odds with the evidence or the law. And in Cargill v. State, 340 S.E.2d 891, 914 (1986), the court recognized that a jury possesses �a de facto power of nullification, i.e., a power to acquit the defendant regardless of the strength of the evidence against him.�
Two procedural elements protect a jury�s power to nullify. First, a criminal jury has the right to return a general verdict which does not specify how it applied the law to the facts, or for that matter, what law was applied or what facts were found. Second, the constitutional double jeopardy standard prevents an appellate court from disregarding the jury's �not guilty� verdict and ordering a new trial on the same charge. See, for example, State v. Lane, 629 S.W.2d 343, 346 (1982): �There is a concept known as jury nullification-a jury deciding cases in disregard of a law they consider unfair, etc. That is, however, simply a power a jury has because once the verdict is entered it cannot be impeached and the defendant retried. Of course, the common experiences in life of the jurors properly form the background against which people-jurors-view the evidence in a case. Jurors do not come to a courtroom bereft of the experiences of life and are expected to use them as jurors.� |
| Quote: |
6. Have any states codified this right into statute?
The state constitutions of both Maryland and Indiana are explicit about the jury�s right to nullify. Maryland's constitution provides that, "[i]n the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction." Indiana's Constitution states that the criminal jury �shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.� |
http://www.drugpolicy.org/law/marijuana/jurynull/
Much more info at www.fija.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
